**** this goddamn group of amoral monkeys. What was it Bush promised? To half the deficit in 4 years. Oh wait, he meant just as a percentage of GDP. Oh wait, he meant he was lying all along. Imbecile.

Here's the 2003 quote:

WASHINGTON, Dec. 17, 2003

(AP) <!-- sphereit start -->President Bush's goal of cutting in half a projected $500 billion federal deficit within five years is being dismissed as too timid by conservatives, unachievable by analysts and laughable by Democrats.

Mr. Bush will include the objective in the $2.3 trillion budget for 2005 he sends Congress in February, nine months away from the presidential and congressional elections. The goal is backed by many Republicans, but conservatives want a bolder move against the record deficits and big spending increases the administration has run up.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/17/politics/main589170.shtml

And today what do we have? A half trillion dollar deficit. Not debt. DEFICIT. Tht's how much we'll be in the red in FY 2009 ALONE.

WASHINGTON - The next president will inherit a record budget deficit approaching $490 billion, according to a new Bush administration estimate.

The official said the deficit was being driven to an all-time high by the sagging economy and the stimulus payments being made to 130 million households in an effort to keep the country from falling into a deep recession. A deficit approaching $490 billion would easily surpass the record deficit of $413 billion set in 2004.

An administration official revealed the $490 billion figure Monday on condition of anonymity because the new estimate had not been formally released. Administration officials were scheduled to do that at a news conference later in the day.

The new figure actually underestimates the deficit, since it leaves out about $80 billion in war costs. In a break from tradition _ and in violation of new mandates from Congress _ the White House did not include its full estimate of war costs.

White House press secretary Dana Perino had no comment on the $490 billion figure. But she told reporters that the White House and lawmakers acknowledged months ago that they were going to increase the deficit by approving a short-term boost for the slumping economy.

"Both parties recognized that the deficit would increase, and that that was going to be the price that we pay," Perino said.

In fact, the White House had included cost estimates for an economic stimulus bill in its earlier projections, so the new figures represent a considerable deterioration in the government's fiscal health.

The White House had predicted in February that next year's deficit at $407 billion, which means the increase in the projections since then would approach $80 billion or so. Figures for the 2008 budget year ending Sept. 30 may also set a record.

The numbers represent about 3 percent of the size of the economy, which is the deficit measure seen as most relevant by economists. That's considerably smaller than the deficits of the 1980s and early 1990s, when Congress and earlier administrations cobbled together politically painful deficit-reduction packages.

Still, the new figures are so eye-popping in dollar terms that it may restrain the appetite of the next president to add to it with expensive spending programs or new tax cuts. In fact, pressure may build to allow some tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 to expire as scheduled at the end of 2010, with Congress also feeling pressure to curb spending growth.
The deficit for 2007 totaled $161.5 billion, which represented the lowest amount of red ink since an imbalance of $159 billion in 2002. The 2002 performance marked the first budget deficit after four consecutive years of budget surpluses.

That stretch of budget surpluses represented a period when the country's finances had been bolstered by a 10-year period of uninterrupted economic growth, the longest period of expansion in U.S. history.
In his first year in office, helped considerably by projections of continuing surpluses, Bush drove through a 10-year, $1.35 trillion package of tax cuts.

However, the country fell into a recession in March 2001 and government spending to fight the war on terrorism contributed to pushing the deficit to a record in dollar terms in 2004.

House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt, D-S.C., said the $490 billion figure confirms "the dismal legacy of the Bush administration: under its policies, the largest surpluses in history have been converted into the largest deficits in history."

The figures to be released later will paint a picture of the financial health of the government that President Bush's successor will inherit, as well as updated predictions of the health of the economy.

White House budget director Jim Nussle and Edward Lazear, chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisors, were scheduled to release the administration's updated forecasts at an early afternoon news conference.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press

whatsmynameagain

07-28-2008, 12:39 PM

cutting taxes is the answer! seriously, wtf??? the republicans should be responsible for paying the debt just like the were responsible for voting in this asshat. then they have the nerve to cry about taxes being raised....absolutely patheticPosted via Mobile Device

HC_Chief

07-28-2008, 12:39 PM

cutting taxes is the answer! seriously, wtf??? the republicans should be responsible for paying the debt just like the were responsible for voting in this asshat. then they have the nerve to cry about taxes being raised....absolutely patheticPosted via Mobile Device

:spock:
your and idiot

***SPRAYER

07-28-2008, 12:40 PM

A letter from Senator Coburn to that scumbag Harry Reid on wasteful spending:

http://coburn.senate.gov/public/inde...3-31162e5aec7c

HC_Chief

07-28-2008, 12:41 PM

A letter from Senator Coburn to that scumbag Harry Reid on wasteful spending:

http://coburn.senate.gov/public/inde...3-31162e5aec7c

Dead link

***SPRAYER

07-28-2008, 12:43 PM

Dead link

Sorry, gotta go to the main page and open up the pdf file (Reid offset letter):

http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Home.Home

Amnorix

07-28-2008, 01:03 PM

A letter from Senator Coburn to that scumbag Harry Reid on wasteful spending:

http://coburn.senate.gov/public/inde...3-31162e5aec7c

You posted this in a separate forum, but I don't imagine all those items are Senator Reid's ideas, and I imagine most of them have been around since before Reid was even a senator.

I'd support eliminating nearly all the items Senator Coburn identifies.

TrickyNicky

07-28-2008, 01:07 PM

When all else fails... print more money!

PBJ

HonestChieffan

07-28-2008, 01:15 PM

the rich, get it from the rich. oh Coprorations too. Get it from them.